LA VERGNE v. WAYMIERE, 165 Wn. 249 (1931)

4 P.2d 1105

JULIUS J. LA VERGNE, as Guardian of the Estate of Frank N. La Vergne, an Incompetent Person, Appellant, v. R. WAYMIERE, Respondent.

No. 23379. Department One.The Supreme Court of Washington.
November 16, 1931.

[1] APPEAL AND ERROR (263, 398) — RECORD — REVIEW — PRESUMPTIONS — JUDGMENTS — NOTWITHSTANDING VERDICT. In the absence of a statement of facts, error in sustaining respondent’s motion for judgment n.o.v. cannot be reviewed.

Appeal from a judgment of the superior court for Thurston county, Wright, J., entered April 20, 1931, in favor of the defendant, notwithstanding the verdict of a jury rendered in favor of the plaintiff, in an action for damages. Affirmed.

John E. Belcher, for appellant.

Roberts, Skeel Holman and Tyre H. Hollander, for respondent.

PARKER, J.

The plaintiff, La Vergne, seeks recovery of damages claimed as the result of the negligence of the defendant, Waymiere. Trial in the superior court, sitting with a jury, resulted in a verdict awarding to plaintiff recovery. Thereupon counsel for the defendant moved for judgment in his favor notwithstanding the verdict. This motion was granted and judgment rendered accordingly, from which the plaintiff has appealed to this court.

[1] It is contended in behalf of appellant that the trial court erred in sustaining respondent’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and rendering judgment accordingly. There has not been brought here any statement of facts advising us as to what the

Page 250

evidence was before the trial court inducing it to so dispose of the case, so we are unable to decide as to whether or not the court erred in so disposing of the case. This leaves the judgment effectually supported by the presumption that it is a correct determination of the cause. In Lee v. Gorman Packing Corporation, 154 Wn. 376, 282 P. 205, we said:

“Whether the facts shown upon the trial warranted the granting of respondent’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict could only be determined by a review of the evidence which, as stated above, is not before us.”

See, also, Rieper v. General Cigar Co., 121 Wn. 427, 209 P. 849.

We conclude that the judgment must be affirmed. It is so ordered.

TOLMAN, C.J., MITCHELL, BEELER, and HERMAN, JJ., concur.

Page 251